Wearing a dress watch with casual clothes

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by lee_44106

I've known quite a few watch aficionados that are equally fanatical about not scratching their watches. I don't subscribe to that camp of thought.

Out of curiosity, are you equally "protective" of your bespoke clothing?

Watches are a hobby of mine, so their condition matters to me. I don't view my clothing the same way.

Originally Posted by RSS

I'm generalizing ... but I'm not. How does the decoration of your Rolex movement compare to that found in a watch by Jaeger LeCoultre or Patek Philippe? Have you made such a comparison?

Well, if you're looking for the most finely decorated movement, Rolex is indeed a silly maker to turn to. However, Rolex watches do have legitimate appeals in terms of design, utility, and history. Watches like the Explorer I and Submariner are classic watches. It makes perfect sense that someone who collects watches and who wants an iconic, high quality sport watch would buy a Rolex.

 

[KtownGreg]

1+ M.

I avoided Rolex for many years choosing Omega to stay "under the radar." As my tastes and WIS knowledge have grown so has my appreciation for Rolex. I wear several different watch brands. Although there is a definite soft spot in my heart for JLC one cannot deny the allure of vintage Rolex. Even the simple SS DJ has a place. Singular posted a vintage DJ with white shirt/jeans a while back which captured its simple aesthetic nicely. Moreover, the WAYWT thread reveals the use of Rolex (often on nato) to punctuate certain fits.

Back to topic. One should wear what they feel. I tend to mix it up: pilots watch with bow tie, GO 60s with jeans, etc. To each his own. What this thread needs is more pictures....

I noticed Rubi wearing a GV Milly in a recent issue of The Rake.

 

[aj_del]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

If you like Rolex, you're better off with a plain steel Datejust on a strap.

Does such a watch exist in the current Rolex catalog ? I think they only have leather straps on the Cellini line. I know you didnt mention leather strap but by strap I assume you meant a leather strap

Originally Posted by KtownGreg

I noticed Rubi wearing a GV Milly in a recent issue of The Rake.

Your watches are very nice but that Rolex is out of the world. To me that is what a Rolex should look like.

BTW, who is Rubi ?

 

[Bartolo]

Originally Posted by bmf895

In answer to your question, your watch would be okay for casual situations because it doesn't strike me as particularly "dressy." It's too busy/gaudy IMHO.

+1 It's definitely blingy, not "dressy" in a dress watch sense.

 

[jhcam8]

Originally Posted by doctorbob

I have a watch that I really like, but it is clearly a dress watch. I'd like to wear it with khakis and a sweater or khakis and a blazer -- maybe even with nice dark jeans and a sweater -- but I'm not sure if it would look awkward. It's a Rolex Prince, the one in the photo. Should I just save it for dressy occasions?

Remove temptation - send it to me at once!

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Watches like the Explorer I and Submariner are classic watches. It makes perfect sense that someone who collects watches and who wants an iconic, high quality sport watch would buy a Rolex.
I don't deny that they are a "classic" of sorts. But I do not find current production Rolex watches to represent "high quality." Of course, I suppose much depends upon one's definition. However just as I'm not one to wear an attractive looking jacket that receives little attention beneath the visible surface ... I won't wear a Rolex for exactly the same reason. And forget decoration ... just look at the lack of finishing period.

What you choose to buy and think of as high quality is ... well ... up to you.

Again, from the article about the Explorer ...

In fact, I think it would be difficult to find another current production watch,
at any price over a few hundred dollars, as deficient in basic workmanship of the mechanicals as the Explorer.​

Anyone interested in the entire Rolex Explorer review ... it may be found as follows: http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...horologium0036
I note from subsequent posts that said review was/is quite a controversial piece. My favorite subsequent piece was by the owner of TimeZone who had purchased the watch and asked for the review.

 

[hodo]

Originally Posted by RSS

This sums up my ways as well.

same here =]

 

[dl20]

Originally Posted by RSS

I'm generalizing ... but I'm not. How does the decoration of your Rolex movement compare to that found in a watch by Jaeger LeCoultre or Patek Philippe? Have you made such a comparison?

As I noted ... I haven't looked inside a Rolex in ten years or more ... but ten years ago ... the decoration of the Rolex movements I saw was astonishingly lacking. It was not a watch that I would consider to be first or even second tier. Jaeger LeCoultre and Patek Philippe would both be first.


I haven't yet peaked under the hood of my GMT but have no delusions as to what I might find. I suppose I dont always see the beauty of a decorated movement as a direct correlation to the quality of a watch.

DL

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by dl20

I haven't yet peaked under the hood of my GMT but have no delusions as to what I might find. I suppose I dont always see the beauty of a decorated movement as a direct correlation to the quality of a watch.
Then perhaps you might consider the fact that the inspected watch (brand new) had abundant machining residue left inside. Perhaps decoration is superfluous to you ... but an abrasive left in a watch would be of concern to me.

I'll quote from the article regarding a few more issues of quality. Note: The letters refer to photographs used to illustrate (making it hard to ignore). You do not believe me? Well, do not take my word for it. Ask Helga ... or rather click on the link provided in the post above.

A handful of the many other quality failures apparent in the movement are illustrated. These include a very roughly finished balance wheel and gouged Microstella screws at all four positions (A); sloppy oiling throughout much of the movement (B); the most crudely finished escape wheel I have ever personally seen in a watch (C); a rough fourth wheel with straight-cut teeth (D) (instead of the more expensive epicycloidal teeth expected in any watch of even reasonable quality); and rough edges with excess metal throughout the main plate (E). The few attempts at surface decoration seems ridiculous in this context, and these attempts are, unfortunately, as badly executed as the rest of the movement. These include perlage applied over a very rough surface on the top of the balance cock, which is otherwise unedged and unfinished (F); and a brushed surface on the upper plate which abruptly ends where it is covered by the automatic winding bridge (G). Peculiarly, perlage is also applied to a few isolated strips of the mainplate visible alongside the winding bridge (H). Such pretensions to "fine finishing" seem ridiculous--or merely cynical--when so badly applied to a movement of such poor basic quality. The money would have been better spent on pragmatic finishing that eliminated contamination inside the movement and other very basic work that raised the movement to an acceptable minimum level of functional workmanship. As it stands, this caliber 3000 is the most crudely finished watch movement that I have ever personally examined; and I include in that observation, a number of movements in extremely inexpensive watches.​

To me -- you needn't include yourself here -- the short cuts, flaws, and lack of attention where it should be placed says volumes about Rolex and its commitment -- or lack thereof -- to quality.

 

[Prince of Paisley]

Originally Posted by RSS

Again, from the article about the Explorer ...

In fact, I think it would be difficult to find another current production watch,
at any price over a few hundred dollars, as deficient in basic workmanship of the mechanicals as the Explorer.​

Anyone interested in the entire Rolex Explorer review ... it may be found as follows: http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...horologium0036
I note from subsequent posts that said review was/is quite a controversial piece. My favorite subsequent piece was by the owner of TimeZone who had purchased the watch and asked for the review.

Whoa. I knew Rolex's prices were not correlated to their objective qualities, but this is a real eye-opener. Unchamfered holes? I mean, come on. I can only hope that the poor workmanship is only a feature of the "cheaper" Rolexes, but now I have my doubts.

Might it be that the fake "Rorexes" are actually better machined than the originals they intend to copy?!

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by aj_del

Does such a watch exist in the current Rolex catalog ? I think they only have leather straps on the Cellini line. I know you didnt mention leather strap but by strap I assume you meant a leather strap

No, but you can just buy a stainless steel Datejust and remove the bracelet.

Originally Posted by RSS

I don't deny that they are a "classic" of sorts. But I do not find current production Rolex watches to represent "high quality."

. . .

Again, from the article about the Explorer ...

In fact, I think it would be difficult to find another current production watch,
at any price over a few hundred dollars, as deficient in basic workmanship of the mechanicals as the Explorer.​

Anyone interested in the entire Rolex Explorer review ... it may be found as follows: http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...horologium0036
I note from subsequent posts that said review was/is quite a controversial piece. My favorite subsequent piece was by the owner of TimeZone who had purchased the watch and asked for the review.

That Odet article is woefully outdated, as that model of Explorer has not been produced for a long time--he was also reviewing a used watch, for what that's worth. The Explorer I is now moving into its second generation away from the one he reviewed. I'd actually argue that current Rolex watches are higher quality than they've ever been. The truth is, Rolex has never been a very finely finished watch--they were supposed to be sporty, after all. However, that's changed a lot. The movements are much nicer than the one Odet looked at, although still not Patek fancy.

But the biggest improvement is in the case and bracelet. The cases are much more finely finished now--the brushed surfaces on older watches always looked very haphazard. Now the brushed finish is more of a satin matte, like you'd see on an IWC or JLC. The bracelets are eons and eons better. The links are now all solid, and the clasp is properly forged and finished, not the stamped piece of tin it used to be.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

That Odet article is woefully outdated, as that model of Explorer has not been produced for a long time--he was also reviewing a used watch, for what that's worth.
According to the owner of TimeZone ... it was new when Odets got it.

As to exterior finishing ... I don't think there was ever much objection ... it's accepted as being fairly good. I'd accept it as good. It's movement finishing (and not just decoration) that is so lacking.

As for being outdated ... it dates from the late 90s ... but can you give example of a newer review that takes an equally thorough a look the workings of a Rolex? I can't find one. And lets be honest ... ten years isn't ancient history.

As I noted, I haven't looked at a Rolex in ten years ... but I seriously doubt there can be as much improvement as you imply.

EDIT: But ... tell you what ... I'll buy one this weekend ... take it apart ... and report back.

 

[dl20]

Originally Posted by RSS

Then perhaps you might consider the fact that the inspected watch (brand new) had abundant machining residue left inside. Perhaps decoration is superfluous to you ... but an abrasive left in a watch would be of concern to me.


I'd be surprised to find abrasive elements in the movement but again, as I said, I haven't removed the caseback and probably wont until necessary.

dl

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by dl20

I haven't removed the caseback and probably wont until necessary.
Each to his own ...

I can't imagine buying a watch without looking inside. I can't imagine owning a watch for a year before I completely disassemble it and put it back together. On the other hand ... my spouse takes your approach ... and would never let me hear the end of it if I began to disassemble. I might not live through it.

 

[dl20]

Originally Posted by RSS

Each to his own ...

I can't imagine buying a watch without looking inside. I can't imagine owning a watch for a year before I completely disassemble it and put it back together.

I wouldnt think others follow this philosophy but would be interested to know if I am in the minority.

Good for you though to be able to do so. I'm just getting stated learning watchmaking as a hobby. Breaking down and reassembling an ETA 2824 and a handful of old pocket watches. Prices of the tools are a killer though.

dl